Economic subjects | Studies, essays, thesises » Industry Membership and Capital Structure Dynamics in the UK

Source: http://www.doksinet Industry membership and capital structure dynamics in the UK Keywords: gearing; targeting; pecking order; trade-off theory; cointegration JEL classification: G32 Source: http://www.doksinet Industry membership and capital structure dynamics in the UK ABSTRACT We examine the impact of industry membership on the capital structure dynamics of UK quoted firms over the period 1968 to 2006 by analysing how the components of common gearing ratios are adjusted in relation to one another. More specifically, if we find evidence of a cointegrating relationship between these components then we argue that this provides us with evidence of target gearing (or targeting) behaviour. Further, employing a novel approach, we test whether firms engage in targeting behaviour in the long-run whilst a hierarchy or pecking order of financing arises in the short-run. The paper is motivated by the conjecture that a synthesis of the pecking-order theory and the trade-off theory

is necessary. Arguably, while both theories can explain certain aspects of capital structure setting behaviour, neither provides a satisfactory general explanation of behaviour in the real-world. The results reveal that in the long-run, most firms demonstrate target gearing behaviour, though targeting is restricted to those measures most meaningful to a firm’s particular industry. Adjustment towards a given target is rapid, taking on average no more than four years. In the short-run, old economy firms follow a standard pecking order whilst new economy firms choose equity in preference to debt when external financing is required. This provides some evidence in support of a synthesis approach to the determination of gearing while also highlighting the importance of industry membership to capital structure determination. 2 Source: http://www.doksinet 1. Introduction The debate regarding whether a firm’s capital structure impacts upon its value, which commenced with Modigliani and

Miller’s 1958 irrelevance proposition, is even today far from over. However, the balance of argument has arguably swung in favour of capital structure relevance, that is, there exists a certain capital structure which will minimise the cost of capital, thereby maximising firm value. An optimal gearing ratio which maximises firm value results from a trade-off of tax shields against financial distress costs (Brealey, Myers and Allen, 2008). Given that the costs and benefits of debt financing will vary across industries, firms most likely set their gearing ratios in relation to the norm for their industry. Indeed, Beattie, Goodacre and Thomson (2006) argue that business risk, asset structure, growth opportunities, and other industry-specific characteristics, drive gearing ratios. Whilst we cannot observe directly firm gearing optimisation, we can observe industry norm targeting, and authors such as Antoniou, Guney and Paudyal (2002) argue that the existence of an optimal gearing ratio

implies the existence of a target ratio. Further, they argue that if it can be shown that debt ratios vary significantly by industry, it will be proved that finance managers have found different optimal gearing ratios that are a function of their firm’s business risk. More recently, there is evidence that UK, French and German firms adjust their gearing towards targets at different speeds depending on whether they are manufacturers or service sector firms. If we are to conduct an empirical study of target gearing, then, an industry level study should enable us to not only test for the occurrence of targeting behaviour, but also to examine the speed of adjustment towards targets. The objective of this paper is to examine the impact of industry membership on the capital structure dynamics of UK firms. More specifically, we investigate whether industry-optimal gearing ratio targeting behaviour occurs in the long run while a hierarchy of financing arises 3 Source: http://www.doksinet

in the short-run. As the impact of gearing determinants will vary across industries, we expect different gearing ratios to be targeted across those industries. We apply a novel approach by testing for evidence of a cointegrating relationship between the component variables of commonly employed capital structure ratios. This approach is more appropriate than previous cross-sectional studies as it enables the study of capital structure dynamics and allows for the variability of gearing ratios and multi-period adjustment, consistent with Dissanaike, Lambrecht and Saragga (2001) and Flannery and Rangan (2006). The approach enables us to consider a synthesis capital structure model where the long-run gearing ratio is determined by the trade-off theory while the short-run variations may be driven by the pecking order theory. The results show that firms in general target industry gearing norms, though the precise measure targeted varies across industries. Retained earnings are used to close

the majority of any deviation from the target in preference to external financing, and when external financing is required, mature industry firms prefer to employ debt whilst younger industry firms prefer equity. These results are consistent with the general version of the pecking order theory proposed by Halov and Heider (2006). This paper proceeds as follows: in Section 2, we briefly review the relevant target capital structure literature. The dataset employed is described and the hypotheses are discussed in Section 3. Section 4 briefly explains the Johansen cointegration methodology and error correction model. In Section 5, the cointegration analysis results are discussed, while Section 6 presents the results of the error correction model. Section 7 summarises the salient findings and concludes. 4 Source: http://www.doksinet 2. The need for some synthesis The literature in general provides support for the existence of optimal gearing ratios and, by implication, target gearing

behaviour in firms. Such behaviour is explained well by the tradeoff theory whereby an optimal ratio is reached by trading off the debt interest tax shield against financial distress costs (Kim, 1978), or by trading off the agency costs and benefits of debt (Jensen, 1986). Evidence supporting targeting behaviour is provided, inter alia, by Francis and Leachman (1994), Leary and Roberts (2005) and Flannery and Rangan (2006) for US firms, and Ozkan (2001), Antoniou, Guney and Paudyal (2002), Bunn and Young (2004) and Beattie, et al. (2006) for UK firms The impact of capital structures determinants is likely to vary significantly across industries, and as a result, optimal ratios will vary across industries not just in terms of magnitude but also in terms of ratio definition. Fischer, Heinkel and Zechner (1989), Dissanaike et al. (2001) and Flannery and Rangan (2006) argue that some researchers fail to acknowledge the multiple time periods required by firms to achieve their target

capital structure ratios. Estimating target gearing in a simple cross-sectional regression implicitly assumes that firms always attain their target gearing ratios within one time period. However, if adjustment costs are non-trivial, restricting the adjustment speed to unity will bias coefficient estimates. Thus, a functional form that permits partial adjustment of the firm’s gearing ratio to its target is essential. Fischer et al. (1989) develop a model of dynamic optimal gearing choice and demonstrate that debt ratios are characterised by wide swings. Flannery and Rangan (2006) and Bunn and Young (2004) find that US and UK firms, respectively, allow their gearing ratios to vary significantly around a target, suggesting that firms do not identify a strict, single optimal 5 Source: http://www.doksinet capital structure ratio as such, but rather a range over which their capital structures are allowed to vary. The alternative to the trade-off theory, suggests that firms prefer to

use retained earnings to external finance, and that when external funds are required, debt is preferred to new equity (Shyam-Sunder and Myers, 1999). This pecking order to financing could arise due to: the asymmetry in the tax code (Stiglitz, 1973); or asymmetric information and adverse selection (Shyam-Sunder and Myers, 1999). However, Nachman and Noe (1994) note that the standard pecking order implicitly assumes that debt is correctly priced because all firms have the same risk or because uninformed outside investors do not care about risk. However, debt is a concave claim with significant adverse selection costs leading to mispricing if risk matters. Halov and Heider (2006) address this issue and advance a new version of the pecking order theory, arguing that when there is greater asymmetric information about risk rather than value, debt is characterised by a more severe adverse selection problem and hence firms would only issue equity. They show that as asset volatility increases,

firms use equity rather than debt to finance their deficits. Moreover, the standard pecking order obtains only when debt is unlikely to be mispriced. Thus, the standard pecking order may be more appropriate in explaining the financing behaviour of mature firms (Brealey, Myers, and Allen, 2008) as these may have lower adverse selection costs for debt. In other words, their debt may be correctly priced, as a result of bond ratings, analysts’ coverage and higher transparency. On the other hand, Fama and French (2002) find that small, high growth firms tend to make large net issues of new stock and are thus the least levered, even though they would appear to be characterised by higher debt capacity. Hence, Halov and Heider’s new version of the pecking order may be more appropriate in explaining the financing behaviour of small, young and/or high growth firms as these may have higher adverse selection costs for debt. This may be 6 Source: http://www.doksinet because their lack of

bond ratings, lower analysts’ coverage and transparency could lead to debt mispricing. The trade-off theory contrasts sharply with the pecking order theory as the former implies an optimal gearing ratio whereas the latter does not (Barclay, Morellec, and Smith, 2006). However, Beattie et al. (2006) argue that once we introduce the concept of a target range we can reconcile the two competing theories: within an optimal range, the gearing ratio may vary in accordance with investment requirements, earnings generation and external financing opportunities as explained by the pecking order theory. However, when the gearing ratio significantly departs from the optimal range, then firms take steps ‘to force’ the gearing ratio to mean revert. Since these steps are costly, then firms must believe that the benefits of mean reversion are higher than the costs, and hence maximise firm value as argued by the trade-off theory. Beattie et al (2006) highlight the need for a model combining

elements of trade-off and pecking order theories and Hovakimian, Opler and Titman (2001) find that firms have target debt ratios whilst also preferring internal financing to external funds. Further, Flannery and Rangan (2006) find strong evidence that firms pursue long-run target capital structures and also that the pecking order variables have some explanatory power in their tests. The implication for empirical testing here is that studies should employ methods capable of modelling the dynamic adjustment of capital structures under such a synthesis model. The approach taken in this study facilitates such testing. Which ratios should we expect firms in different industries to target? On the basis of the ‘control hypothesis’ for debt creation, high free cash flow generating firms with low growth prospects have an incentive to create more debt in their capital structures to enable managers to bond their promise to pay out future cash flows, thereby reducing agency costs (Jensen, 7

Source: http://www.doksinet 1986). Firms with high tangible, fixed assets should target gearing ratios which include either total assets or book equity (Barclay, Morellec and Smith, 2006). Well-established firms with a history of value creation over and above book value should target ratios which include market rather than book value equity (Brealey et al., 2008) Further, as such firms should evidence significant accumulated retained earnings, then gearing ratios which include total equity as opposed to base equity (issued share capital alone) are more likely to be targeted. In terms of debt maturity, firms which are smaller, younger, have cyclical business, or with longer operating cycles should target ratios which include short-term debt (Barclay, Morellec and Smith, 2006), whereas larger firms with higher fixed asset ratios should target gearing ratios with long-term debt as a component, particularly as they enjoy debt issue cost economies (Bevan and Danbolt, 2000). 3. Data and

hypotheses In this study we use the Datastream FTAG3 industry classification code, thereby providing us with 10 broad industries. We obtained firm capital structure data for 2,427 firms across ten industries over the period 1968–2006: extraction (84), construction (283), general engineering (402), textiles (272), biotechnology (215), leisure (730), retail (57), utilities (50), real estate (190), and information technology (144 firms). We employ the Johansen (1991) cointegration test1 as it allows us to study capital structure dynamics in a multi-period framework and thus represents a significant improvement in relation to the tests of the existing literature which are largely cross sectional.2 Studying targeting at the industry level involves some information loss due to aggregation, though the behaviour of interest occurs at the industry level and our approach enables gains in terms of greater results generalisation. 8 Source: http://www.doksinet There is considerable debate

concerning how capital structure ratios and their components should be defined. Clearly market value gearing measures are preferable to book value measures as they are more economically meaningful due to their ‘forward-looking’ nature (Barclay et al., 2006), though a number of studies have found the two measures to be statistically indistinguishable (Bancel and Mittoo, 2002). Some authors argue that short-term debt should be included as its omission would lead to an understatement of financial risk. Rajan and Zingales (1995), Bevan and Danbolt (2000), and Bancel and Mittoo (2002) find evidence of the importance of short-term debt to UK firms. We include in our study book and market value measures, and both short and long-term debt.3 Data is measured as falling in the financial reporting year end for a firm, consistent with Dissanaike et al. (2001), and financial firms are omitted due to their atypical capital structures. The data sample thus consists of 12 time series financial

statement and market variables over a span of 39 years. Consistent with other empirical studies, such as Bunn and Young (2004), the econometric analysis is conducted using natural logarithm values rather than levels as the distribution of changes of logarithmic values is closer to normal. Table 1 presents the gearing ratio components, along with their assigned variable labels, Datastream codes and definitions. [Insert Table 1 about here] Table 2 presents selected summary statistics. The table clearly confirms the importance of short-term debt as a proportion of total debt. As expected, accumulated retained earnings are a function of a firm’s age and an important component of its capital accounts, particularly in high-growth, R&D intensive industries such as IT and biotechnology. The market to book ratio, which proxies growth opportunities, is also high for these industries, whilst it is only 9 Source: http://www.doksinet moderate in the more established real estate and

textile industries. Finally, firm size varies significantly across industries. [Insert Table 2 about here] In the discussion above, the evidence supporting both the pecking order and trade-off theories was presented. Further, Beattie et al (2006) argue that while the fundamental approach to financing may be based on the pecking order theory, the firm’s short-term financing decision may be determined by trade-off theory drivers, though Sogorb-Mira and Lopez-Gracia (2003) find little evidence to support this for Spanish firms. In this study we argue that although both theories have merit individually, considered together they explain firm financing behaviour more comprehensively in two different time frames and in a particular sequence. Consistent with Beattie et al. (2006), we propose that while the fundamental approach to financing for UK firms may be based on trade-off theory, their short-term financing decisions may be driven by pecking order theory considerations. Table 3

presents the hypotheses of this study Our central hypothesis, H1, is that UK quoted firms have target capital structure ratios to which they adjust in the long run while in the short run they deviate from these target ratios and that in the adjustment process firms employ the securities with the lowest adverse selection costs. The supporting economic hypotheses, H2 to H5, enable us to be more precise concerning the definition of gearing ratio targeted and the source of finance employed in the adjustment process. [Insert Table 3 about here] 4. The cointegration methodology The hypotheses are tested by a methodology which seeks to determine whether the numerator and denominator of a given capital structure ratio are cointegrated. The intuition is 10 Source: http://www.doksinet straightforward: if, say, the debt-to-assets ratio is targeted, then debt and assets cannot (indefinitely) diverge from each other beyond a certain threshold. This implies that debt and assets are tied

together by common stochastic trends and hence will be cointegrated. This approach parallels that employed by Marsh and Merton (1987) who argued that US firms maintain a dividend-price ratio towards which they continually adjust, and that such behaviour implies that prices and dividends are cointegrated. Applying this reasoning to the gearing issue enables the occurrence of targeting behaviour to be tested. In the field of gearing, Francis and Leachman (1994) employ the Johansen methodology to test whether there exists an equilibrium relationship between the gearing ratio and its determinants and find an equilibrium relationship and thus an aggregate optimal gearing ratio. In this paper we employ a more comprehensive cointegration and error correction mechanism (ECM) analysis to a wide range of gearing ratios whilst correcting for some shortcomings inherent in earlier studies. The Johansen (1991) maximum likelihood estimators test for the presence of multiple cointegrating vectors is

described below.4 For the n-variable first-order VAR given by xt = A1 xt −1 + ε t after subtracting xt −1 from each side we obtain: ∆xt = ( A1 − I ) xt −1 + ε t ∆xt = πxt −1 + ε t where xt and ε t are (n x 1) vectors; A1 is an (n x n) matrix of parameters; I is an (n x n) identity matrix; and π is defined to be ( A1 − I ) . The model is easily modified to allow for the presence of a drift term and/or a time trend as well as a higher-order of autoregressive process. In this system, the vector xt contains the time series of gearing ration components, i.e debt and equity or debt and assets Thus, in this case xt and ε t are (2 x 1) vectors 11 Source: http://www.doksinet The rank of π equals the number of cointegrating vectors. The number of distinct cointegrating vectors can be obtained by checking the significance of the characteristic roots of π . The test for the number of the characteristic roots that are significantly different from unity can be

constructed using the following two test statistics: n ^ λtrace(r ) = −T ∑ ln(1 − λ i ) (1) i = r +1 ^ λ max(r , r + 1) = −T ln(1 − λ r + 1) (2) ^ where λ i are the estimated values of the characteristic roots (or eigenvalues) obtained from the estimated π matrix. The first statistic tests the null hypothesis that the number of distinct cointegrating vectors is less than or equal to r against a general alternative, thus λtrace = 0 ^ when all λ i = 0 . The further the estimated characteristic roots are from zero, the larger the λtrace statistic. The second statistic tests the null hypothesis that the number of the cointegrating vectors is r against the alternative of r+1 cointegrating vectors. Again, if the estimated value of the characteristic root is close to zero, λ max will be small. Although asymptotically the statistics have a χ 2 distribution with (n-r) degrees of freedom, the critical values depend on the number of nonstationary components under

the null hypothesis (i.e n-r) and the form of the vector A0 (i.e the presence or not of the drift and time trend terms) An advantage of this approach is that it allows simultaneous estimation of the cointegrating vector β and adjustment speed coefficients a as a function of π ( π = aβ ). A principal feature of cointegrated variables is that their time paths are influenced by the extent of any deviation from long-run equilibrium. After all, if the system is to return to the long-run equilibrium, the movements of at least some of the variables must respond to the magnitude of the disequilibrium. Thus, the short-term dynamics must be influenced by the 12 Source: http://www.doksinet deviation from the long-run relationship. The dynamic model implied is one of error correction whereby the short-term dynamics of the variables in the system are influenced by the deviation from equilibrium. A simple, two-variable ECM could be specified: ∆x1t = α 1 ( x1,t −1 − βx 2,t −1 ) +

ε 1t (3) ∆x2t = −α 2 ( x1,t −1 − βx2,t −1 ) + ε 2t (4) where at least one of the adjustment speed coefficients α1 and α 2 must be non-zero, otherwise a cointegrating relationship would not exist.5 The two terms ε 1t and ε 2t are white noise that may be correlated. The industry-optimal gearing ratio targeting hypothesis, H1, is tested by means of cointegration analysis tests: we test the null hypothesis that gearing ratio components i.e the numerator (debt) and denominator (equity or assets) are not cointegrated against the alternative that these ratio components are cointegrated. If the null hypothesis of no cointegration is rejected in favour of the alternative, this implies adjustment of gearing ratio components to correct the deviation from the long-run equilibrium representing the target ratio. Therefore, if gearing ratio components are found to adjust to eliminate any deviation that has occurred in the past, then this is interpreted as evidence in favour of

the optimal gearing ratio targeting hypothesis. The rationale here is that adjusting one gearing ratio component in relation to the other is an expensive process and would be irrational unless managers believed the adjustment would benefit their firm in the long-run given macroeconomic, industry and firm-specific conditions. 13 Source: http://www.doksinet We also model the dynamics of the adjustment process by examining the ECM. This modelling exercise enables us to consider the occurrence, or otherwise, of a hierarchy of financing when firms correct the deviation from target. For example, we decompose the TD/TE ratio into TD/(BE+RE) employing the accounting identity total equity = book value of equity + accumulated retained earnings. For example, if the adjustment speed coefficients of the ECM suggest that when the actual ratio deviates from the target, it is retained earnings which closes the majority of the deviation from the target, followed by total debt, then this might

indicate a standard pecking order effect. Further, to check the consistency of the ECM results, in addition to the TD/(BE+RE) ratio, we also examine the adjustment speed coefficients of the D/(BE+RE), TD/BE and D/BE ratios. If the adjustment speed coefficients suggest that retained earnings close the majority of the deviation from the target, followed by debt, then this again might indicate a standard pecking order effect. Similarly, in the case of (T)D/BE ratios, if (total) debt closes the majority of the deviation from the target, while book equity closes a smaller part of the deviation, then this also might indicate a standard pecking order effect. However, since firms adjust their gearing ratios to the long-run ratio, this should override any pecking order effect and provide evidence in favour of the trade-off theory. 5. Testing for the occurrence of targeting behaviour Table 4 presents the results of the Johansen cointegration analysis to test whether firms across the 10

industries target different gearing ratios. In the table significant statistics, that is, incidences where the hypothesis of no cointegration is rejected, are presented in bold, thereby indicating which ratios are targeted by firms in a given industry. [Insert Table 4 about here] 14 Source: http://www.doksinet The results show that: whilst targeting behaviour occurs in the majority of industries, the precise gearing ratio targeted varies markedly; gearing measures which include total assets are the most popular; measures which include total equity (including reserves) appear to be more widely employed than those which include base equity alone or those which include the market value of equity. Clearly, gearing ratios including the book value of equity alone, that is, issued share capital, do not adequately capture financial risk for most UK firms. Evidently, the ‘equity cushion’ enjoyed by debt holders is a far broader concept, and should include accumulated retained earnings

and other reserves, hence the greater popularity of the total equity gearing ratios. The popularity of the total debt to total assets ratio emphasises the importance of the balance sheet to financial managers in two respects: firstly, accounting assets are an important consideration in their own right as a stock concept of productive and working capital assets giving rise to the continuity of the firm; and secondly, financial managers are clearly mindful of the balance sheet equation whereby shareholders are residual claimants on the firm’s total assets after other claims such as debt have been settled. Finally, given the ‘forward-looking’ nature of market equity, it is somewhat surprising that gearing ratios containing market value equity are not targeted more across the industries studied. Perhaps firms simply prefer book measures, as the fluctuation of market measures renders their practical use as metrics in strategic financial planning problematic. Further insights are

gained by examining which industries tend to target their gearing ratios. In general, it is evident that ‘old industry’ firms are more prone to targeting than ‘new industry’ firms. Older industries such as the extraction, construction and textiles industries tend to target book value gearing measures including either total assets or equity. Interestingly, however, the real estate industry targets only asset-based gearing ratios and the engineering industry shows no evidence of targeting at all. It is possible that the real estate 15 Source: http://www.doksinet industry is atypical given that certain immutable gearing ratios are industry-bound and deterministic, whilst the engineering industry is atypical given its extremely heterogeneous nature. Newer industries, such as information technology, tend to target a narrower range of ratios than older industries. The exceptions to this are biotechnology which targets a range of ratios and leisure which does not appear to target

at all. In common with the older industries, newer industries target book equity or total assets ratios in equal measure, though are more likely to target market equity based measures than older industries. The results demonstrate that those industries with significant balance sheet assets tend to target gearing measures with totals assets employed as a denominator. Older industries, such as extraction, construction and textiles are fixed asset intensive given their requirement to invest heavily in production facilities, and these assets are then used as collateral to secure borrowing. Further, the real estate industry is by its very nature asset-intensive and it makes logical sense to monitor debt in relation to the asset base rather than the balance of equity claims. All of the industries which evidence targeting behaviour target book equity ratios, whether narrow base (equity) or total (equity capital and reserves), except for the real estate industry which monitors debt in

relation to assets. This result reinforces the shareholder focus of financial managers who must monitor the financial risk to which they are exposing them and take corrective action when the firm is becoming too financially risky in relation to its industry norm. Market equity ratios are targeted only in the extraction, biotechnology, and information technology industries. In the extraction industry, financial managers necessarily focus on the value of mineral and oil reserves which are better captured by market than by 16 Source: http://www.doksinet book values. In the newer economy biotechnology and IT industries, book values are less useful than market values in evidencing the present value of future growth opportunities. To summarise, hypothesis H1 is clearly supported as all industries except engineering and leisure appear to target at least one form of gearing ratio. In terms of the supporting hypotheses, hypotheses H2 to H5 are supported but only for selected industries as

discussed above. Book value equity gearing ratios, particularly those where equity includes both equity capital and reserves, and total asset gearing ratios are popular targeted measures. However, market value equity gearing ratios are targeted far less across the industries of this study. UK quoted firms do in general target gearing ratios, then, though targeting is restricted to those measures appropriate to their industry and their investors. 6. Measuring the speed of adjustment We can measure the speed of adjustment towards a target gearing ratio within each industry by examining the error correction mechanism. Consistent with Leary and Roberts (2005), we classify industries as either ‘old economy’ or ‘new economy’ in a similar fashion to the distinction applied above. The old economy group includes industries such as extraction, construction, textiles and real estate whereas the new economy group includes biotechnology and IT. Old economy industries are in general fixed

assets intensive whereas new economy industries are in general high-growth and R&D intensive. [Insert Table 5 about here] Table 5 presents the adjustment speed coefficients of the ECM for the gearing ratio components by industry. The table shows that such adjustment is relatively fast and would appear to take between two and four years on average, consistent with Leary and Roberts 17 Source: http://www.doksinet (2005) and Flannery and Rangan (2006).6 Further, it would appear that those new economy firms which do target, adjust faster to target gearing than old economy industries, consistent with the findings of Leary and Roberts (2005). This may be because the costs of deviating from the target are higher in the new economy industries than old economy industries, perhaps as the former do not enjoy the reputation effects of the latter. If we compute adjustment speed coefficients for total debt and both of the components of total equity, thereby giving us separate adjustment

speed coefficients for equity capital and reserves, we can infer the nature of pecking order adjustment across the ten UK industries. The final row on the table, TD-BE-RE provides us with this insight. As expected, the adjustment speed coefficients show that retained earnings close the majority of the gap between the target and the actual ratio in both old and new economy industries. However, some interesting differences arise where these industries resort to external finance to correct the deviation from target. Old economy industries generally appear to close the second largest part of the deviation from target with debt whereas new economy industries close the second largest part of the deviation with equity instead. Old economy firms thus follow the standard pecking order whereas new economy firms follow a different pecking order, consistent with the general pecking order theory proposed by Halov and Heider (2006). Small, high growth, R&D intensive firms such as those in the

biotechnology and IT industries may have more asymmetric information about risk and hence debt will be severely mispriced. In this case, equity has lower adverse selection costs, ‘forcing’ new economy firms to issue equity to close the deviation from the target. The only two old economy industries whose behaviour does not appear consistent with the standard pecking order are utilities and real estate. However, it is unlikely that Halov and 18 Source: http://www.doksinet Heider’s generalised pecking order theory suits such firms since they are normally mature, well-established firms rather than small, fast growing firms. A possible explanation for utility firms is that they are heavily regulated and hence financing outcomes do not represent the deliberate optimising decisions of finance managers. Many researchers, such as Dissanaike et al. (2001), exclude utility and financial firms due to their atypical financing behaviour: restrictions on the dividend payout/retention

ratio, maximum debt levels, and so on, of utility firms may mean that the resulting gearing ratio is not an outcome of deliberate choice for finance managers. With regard to the real estate industry, it might be argued that firms are similar to financial firms in terms of maturity matching and the maintenance of strict solvency and liquidity margins to meet debt covenants, and as such should be excluded from the analysis. In sum, adjustment towards a target gearing ratio is fairly rapid for UK firms, taking between two and four years on average. The speed of adjustment coefficients for retained earnings, debt and equity when taken together reveal that old industry firms tend to follow the standard pecking order whilst new economy firms tend instead to resort to equity before debt when external financing is required. 7. Conclusion This paper sought to examine the impact of industry membership on the capital structure dynamics of UK firms, and in particular to investigate whether

industry-optimal gearing ratio targeting behaviour occurs in the long-run while a hierarchy of financing arises in the shortrun. The capital structure debate has over many decades arrived at something of a theoretical and empirical impasse – either firms trade-off the costs and benefits of gearing to arrive at an optimal gearing ratio or they avoid the optimality issue and simply select the most 19 Source: http://www.doksinet advantageous form of finance on an incremental basis. This paper, investigating the conjectures of Beattie et al. (2006), argues that some synthesis is required to reconcile the two theoretical camps and further that firms might in fact pursue an optimal or target gearing ratio in the long-run whilst accepting a pecking order of financing in the short-run. The paper employed a novel approach by testing for evidence of a cointegrating relationship between the component variables of capital structure ratios commonly employed by finance managers, testing for

the occurrence of targeting and/or pecking order behaviour in UK quoted companies grouped by 10 broad industries over almost four decades. The results suggest that most firms demonstrate target gearing behaviour, though such targeting is restricted to those measures most appropriate to their industry and their investors. Adjustment towards a given target is fairly rapid, taking between two and four years. Further examination of the speed of adjustment coefficients reveals that old economy firms tend to follow the standard pecking order, whilst new economy firms tend instead to resort to equity before debt when external financing is required. Therefore, the paper builds on previous studies by showing that synthesis between the trade-off and pecking order theories is not only theoretically desirable but is readily observable, at least at industry level. Extensions to this study might include a study of capital structure dynamics at firm-level, particularly as it is clear that certain

industries are far from homogeneous. Notes 1. We also employ the Engle-Granger (1987) cointegration test However, for efficiency of presentation we do not report these results. They are available upon request 2. We also employ the Kruskal-Wallis and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) techniques which test the hypothesis that gearing ratios vary more across industries than they do within industries (see, for example, Bradley, Jarrell 20 Source: http://www.doksinet and Kim, 1984). The results confirm the industry norm targeting hypothesis To preserve space, we do not present these results. They are available upon request 3. We conduct the cointegration analysis and estimate the ECM for total as well as long-term debt and find that they generally lead to the same inferences. For efficiency of presentation, we do not report the results for ratios with long-term debt as a component. They are available upon request 4. Cointegration analysis requires that variables be integrated of the same

order The Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) and Philip-Perron (PP) unit root tests reveal that each gearing ratio component for each of the ten industries are is integrated of order one (I(1)). For efficiency of presentation we do not report the results They are available upon request. 5. From the estimated adjustment speed coefficients we compute also the half-life, ie the time required by the process to return halfway to the equilibrium state after a shock which is given by t = ln(0.5) αi i = 1,2 (see, for example, Leary and Roberts, 2005). However, since we are more interested in the relative magnitude of the adjustment speed coefficients, we do not report the half-life estimates. They are available upon request 6. We reach this conclusion based on the half-life estimates computed as outlined in footnote 5 21 Source: http://www.doksinet References Antoniou, A., Guney, Y, Paudyal, K (2002) Determinants of corporate capital structure: evidence from France, Germany and the UK.

European Financial Management, 17 (1), 45-60. Bancel, F., Mittoo, U (2002) The determinants of capital structure choice: a survey of European firms. Financial Management, 33, 103-132 Barclay, M., Morellec, E Smith Jr, C (2006) On the debt capacity of growth options Journal of Business, 79 (1), 37-60. Beattie, V., Goodacre, A, Thomson, S (2006) Corporate financing decisions: UK survey evidence. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 33(9&10), 1402–1434 Bevan, A., Danbolt, J (2000) Capital structure and its determinants in the UK - a decompositional analysis. Applied Financial Economics, 12 (3), 159-170 Bradley, M. Jarrell, GA, Kim, EH (1984) On the existence of an optimal capital structure: theory and evidence. Journal of Finance, 39 (3), 857-878 Brealey, R., Myers, S, Allen, F (2008) Principles of Corporate Finance 9th Ed New York: McGraw-Hill. Bunn, P., Young, G (2004) Corporate capital structure in the United Kingdom: determinants and adjustment. Bank of England Working

Paper No 226 Dissanaike, G. Lambrecht, B, Saragga, A (2001) Differentiating debt target from non-target firms: an Empirical study on corporate capital structure. University of Cambridge, JIMS Working Paper No. 18/2001, available on the internet at http:/ssrn.com/abstract=293103 22 Source: http://www.doksinet Engle, R., Granger, C (1987) Co-integration and error correction: representation, estimation and testing. Econometrica, 55 (2), 251-276 Fama, E.F, French, KR (2002) Testing tradeoff and pecking order predictions about dividends and debt. Review of Financial Studies, 15 (1), 1-33 Fischer, E., Heinkel, R, Zechner, J (1989) Dynamic capital structure choice: theory and tests. Journal of Finance, 44 (1), 19-40 Flannery, M., Rangan, KP (2006) Partial adjustment toward target capital structures Journal of Financial Economics, 79 (3), 469–506. Francis. B, Leachman L (1994) A time-series approach to exploring aggregate capital structure: cointegration analysis. Applied

Financial Economics, 4 (1), 41-54 Halov, N., Heider, F (2006) Capital structure, risk and asymmetric information EFA 2004 MAASTRICHT, available on the internet at http://ssrn.com/abstract=566443 Hovakimian, A., Opler, T, Titman, S (2001) The debt-equity choice Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 36 (1), 1–24. Jensen, M. (1986) Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeovers American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings of the Ninety-Eighth Annual Meeting of the A.EA, 76 (2), 323-329 Johansen, S. (1991) Estimation and hypothesis testing of cointegration vectors in Gaussian vector autoregressive models. Econometrica, 59 (6), 1551–1580 Kim, E. (1978) A mean-variance theory of optimal capital structure and corporate debt capacity. Journal of Finance, 33 (1) 45-63 Leary, M., Roberts, M (2005) Do firms rebalance their capital structure? Journal of Finance, 60 (6), 2575–619. 23 Source: http://www.doksinet Marsh, T., Merton, R (1987) Dividend behaviour

for the aggregate stock market Journal of Business, 60 (1), 1-40. Modigliani, F., Miller, M (1958) The cost of capital, corporation finance and the theory of investment. American Economic Review, 48 (3) 261-297 Nachman, D., Noe, TH (1994) Optimal design of securities under asymmetric information Review of Financial Studies, 7 (1), 1-44. Ozkan, A. (2001) Determinants of capital structure and adjustment to long run target: evidence from UK company panel data. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 28 (1&2), 175–198. Rajan, R., Zingales, L (1995) What do we know about capital structure? Some evidence from international data. Journal of Finance, 50 (5), 1421-1460 Shyam-Sunder, L., Myers, S (1999) Testing static tradeoff against pecking order models of capital structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 51 (2), 219-244 Sogorb-Mira, F., Lopez-Gracia, J (2003) Pecking order versus trade-off: an empirical approach to the small and medium enterprise capital structure, available on

the internet at http://ssrn.com/abstract=393160 Stiglitz, J.E (1973) Taxation, corporate financial policy and the cost of capital Journal of Public Economics, 2 (1), 1-34. 24